THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING MAXIMS USED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS IN
“BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM”
THESIS
NURUL AFIATI BY NIM : 03320095
ENGLISH LETTERS AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF HUMANITY AND CULTURE
THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MALANG
2007
THE FLOUTING AND HEDGING MAXIMS USED BY THE MAIN CHARACTERS IN
“BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM”
THESIS
Presented to
the State Islamic University of Malang
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra (S.S)
Advisor:
Drs. Nur Salam, M.Pd
Nurul Afiati By:
NIM: 03320095
ENGLISH LETTERS AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF HUMANITY AND CULTURE
THE STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF MALANG
2007
APROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that The Sarjana thesis, entitled “The Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by the Main Characters in ‘Bend It Like Beckham’”, written by Nurul Afiati has been approved by the advisor for further approval by the Board of Examiners.
Malang, 8th October 2007
Approved by Acknowledged by Advisor the Head of English Letters
and Language Department
Drs. Nur Salam, M.Pd Dra. Hj. Syafiyah, M.A.
NIP. 131602091 NIP. 150246406
the Dean of Humanity and Culture Faculty
Drs. H. Dimjati Ahmadin, M.Pd NIP. 150035072
LEGITIMATION SHEET
This is to certify that The Sarjana thesis, entitled “The Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by the Main Characters in ‘Bend It Like Beckham’”, written by Nurul Afiati has been approved by the Board of Examiners as one of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra in English Letters and Language Department, Faculty of Humanity and Culture, the State Islamic University of Malang.
the Board of Examiners Signature
1. Drs. H. Djoko Susanto, M.Ed, Ph.D (Chairman) (……….) NIP. 150299503
2. Prof. Dr. H. Mudjia Rahardjo, M.Si (Main Examiner) (……….) NIP. 150244741
3. Drs. Nur Salam, M.Pd (Advisor) (………..) NIP. 131602091
Malang, 8th October 2007 Approved by
the Dean of Faculty of Humanity and Culture
Drs. H. Dimjati Ahmadin, M.Pd NIP. 150035072
MOTTO
The wise man attaches wisdom and model to his words
(Imam Ali bin Abi Tholib r.a.)
Language is Functional and Must Be Context Jalised
(Jane Crawford)
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP
Name : Nurul Afiati NIM : 03320095
Department : English Letters and Language Department Faculty : Faculty of Humanity and Culture
certify that the thesis I wrote to fulfill the requirement for the degree of Sarjana thesis entitled The Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by the Main Characters in
“Bend It Like Beckham” is truly my original work. I do not incorporate any materials previously written or published by other people, except those indicated in quotation and bibliography. Due to this fact, I am the only responsible for the thesis if there are any objections or claims from others.
Malang, 8th October 2007 The Writer,
Nurul Afiati
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All Praise and Gratitude be to Allah SWT, the Almighty and Merciful who has given me great affection and guidance in finishing my thesis entitled “The Flouting and Hedging Maxims Used by The Main Characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”. His mercy and peace are for the prophet Muhammad SAW who has brought us from the darkness to the brightness by Islamic values of the Holy Qur’an to people all over the world.
Then, I would like to thank those who have assisted me in writing this thesis. I express my first gratitude to Drs. Nur Salam M.Pd who has consciously guided me through out the entire process of the thesis writing with all of the constructive comments, which helped me make this more perfect.
Likewise, my sincere gratitude goes to the Rector of UIN Malang, Prof.
Dr. H. Imam Suprayogo, the Dean of the Faculty of Humanity and Culture, Drs.
H. Dimjati Ahmadin, M. Pd., and the Head of the Letters and Language
Department, Dra. Hj. Syafiyah M.A. and all my teachers who had been taught me and transferred their knowledge, thanks so much.
Above all, I express deepest thanks to my beloved family who has given me endless love, prayers, sacrifices, a spiritual and material supports for me especially my parents: my dad, Muhammad Ikrom who has implanted the strength seeds into the bottom of my heart, to my mom, Siti Bariyah, who has provided me her massive affection in perpetuity to steal my pains away and given me advice.
To my brothers and sisters, Imam Muslim, Muftihatun Aliyah, Munjiatun Aliyah,
Muhammad Arif Rofiuddin and Fitri Ifada Mubaridah; thanks for love, support and prayer you gave to me. To my beloved, the one whom I’ll build my home with; thanks for love, care and support. To My uncle, Zainuddin and his family and Mbak Heni and her family; thanks for suports, care and time you gave to me.
Hopefully, Allah provides me a chance to repay all of your everlasting love and prove my devotion along my lifetime.
Next, I would like to give my gratitude to my companions, Aya, Farid, Hisan, Yans, Fitri, Hanis, Noor and Susil, thanks for helpings and friendship. To all my friends in English Language and Letters Department then, all of the
students of English Letters and Language Department of 2003, especially Sensa-C class who always accompany my days and all others who I cannot mention them in this occasion. To all my friends of Sina 26 (Yans, Asti, Arisma, Dwi, Ella and Indri); thanks for your friendship and togetherness wether in happy or in
sorrowful. To all my friends in Nurul Ummah Dormitory, especially A3’s, (Fia, Rofiatul, Wiwit and Ria); thanks a lot for your support and togetherness. Also to all who have ever helped and given me support and advice.
Finally, I admit that this thesis is truly not perfect. Therefore, any
constructive comments from the readers will make this writing better. It is hopeful that this writing can provide a valuable contribution to the field of Linguistics, in particular discourse analysis.
Malang, 8th October 2007
the writer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET LEGITIMATION SHEET
MOTTO ………... i
DEDICATION ……….. ……... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………...iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………... v
LIST OF APPENDIX……… vii
ABSTRACT ………... viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ……….. 1
1.2 Problems of the Study………... 7
1.3 Objectives of the Study ………... 7
1.4 Significance of the Study ………..7
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study ………... 8
1.6 Definition of the Key Terms ……… 8
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Discourse Analysis ………... 10
2.2 Context and Text ……….. 13
2.2.1 Context ………... 13
2.2.2 Text ………... 16
2.3 Written and Spoken Discourse ………... 18
2.4 Implicature ………... 19
2.5 Cooperative Principle ………... 21
2.5.1 Maxims of Quantity ……… 23
2.5.2 Maxims of Quality ………... 24
2.5.3 Maxims of Relation ………. 25
2.5.4 Maxims of Manner ……….. 26
2.6 Flouting Maxims ……….. 28
2.6.1 Tautology ………. 30
2.6.2 Metaphor ………... 31
2.6.3 Overstatement ………... 32
2.6.4 Understatement ……… 34
2.6.5 Rhetorical Question ....………..…... 35
2.6.6 Irony ………... 36
2.7 Hedging Maxims ……….. 37
2.3 The Synopsis of Bend It Like Beckham...……….. 38
2.4 Previous Studies ………... 40
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design ………... 43
3.2 Research Subject ………... 44
3.3 Data Source ………... 44
3.4 Research Instrument ………. 44
3.5 Data Collection ………. 45
3.6 Data Analysis ………... 45
3.7 Triangulation ………... 45
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Research Finding ……….. 47
4.2 Discussion ………... 84
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion ……… 87
5.2 Suggestion ………... 88
BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX
ABSTRACT
Afiati, Nurul. 2007. The Flouting and Hedging Used by the Main Characters in
“Bend It Like Beckham”. Thesis. English Letters and Language Department, Faculty of Humanity and Culture. The State Islamic University of Malang. Advisor: Drs. Nur Salam, M.Pd.
Key Words: Flouting, Hedging, Maxims, Utterance, Bend It Like Beckham
The effectiveness and efficiently of delivering information are needed in communication. That is why, it is essential to use Grice’s maxims theory of cooperative principles to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Maxim is a basic assumption and it can be changed. There are four maxims, namely maxim of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Thus, we are have to obey the rules of four maxims to communicate smoothly.
This study focuses on analyzing the hedging and flouting maxims used by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”. The maxims are violated and overtly broken, that cause the sentences seem informative, well founded and relevant. It also causes the sentences have some implied meaning and sometimes it is difficult to understand less informative. The research problems in this thesis are (1) How are the maxims flouted by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham?” (2) How are the maxims hedged by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham?”. A descriptive qualitative method is used because the data are explained descriptively. The data are taken from the main characters’ utterance in conversations in “Bend It Like Beckham”.
After the data obtained and analyzed, it is found that the most of the data are flouting the maxims, especially the maxims of quantity and quality. So it uses the sentences which have some of data flouting maxim of manner because the data can cause ambiguous and obscurity. Therefore, the data are using
exaggeration statement which is also classified on understatement and overstatement. The data also uses metaphor, rhetorical question and irony to indicate that they are not literally true conveyed some implied meanings. It is also found tautology on the data. Moreover, flouting the maxim of relation is found in the data. Then it is found understatement, because less information.
There were also some data that were hedging the maxims. It is found that most of them are hedging the maxims of quality, because there are many data, which show the statement is doubtful. Besides, it is found that the data are hedging the maxims of relation and manner because the utterance is expressed in long drawn way and has relation one each other. It is found also that there are some data, which abides the maxims of quantity, because the data fulfilled the data is informative as is required. Some data fulfilled all the maxims of quality because there are true, fulfilled all the maxims of quantity because they are informative, fulfilled the maxims of relation because they are relevant, and fulfilled the maxims of manner, because they are not ambiguous.
It is found that (1) Exaggerated statements are used maxims were flouted when they were overtly broken by the main characters’ utterance of “Bend It Like Beckham” such as tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rethorical question and irony. (2) Maxims of quantity itself is flouted when the utterances are overstatement. (3) Rethorical question in the main characters’ utterance do not use “wh” question or it is ungrammatically, however it is a rethoric because of its intonation.
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The introduction below deals with the background of the study, the problems of the study, objective of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study and definition of the key terms.
1.1 Background of the Study
# " ! " & % $
( ) ( ' :*+)
“Mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nation and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise) each other verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is the most Rightous of you. And God has full
knowledgeand is well acquanted (Al-Hujurat: 13).
This statement is one of ayat from Holy Kur’an that is a basic to human people to know one each other. Based on this ayat shows that knowing others is impossible without communication. And Language is a mean of communication. It is used to communicate and know one each other. Thus, understanding language use in community is very important in our life.
In study of language or Linguistics, especially in English, we know some branches of Linguistics; they are Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Pragmatics and
Semantics. In this case, study of language use is a part of Pragmatics. Therefore, Discourse Analysis is study of language use to communicate in human life.
When we want to analyze the way how sentences work in a sequence to produce coherent sentences of language, at least there are two main point approaches which can be used, namely discourse analysis (focuses on the structure of language); however, in particular with discourse analysis and text analysis can be used in much broader sense to include all language units with definable communicative function, whether spoken or written, Edmadson in Farida (2003:1).
Brown and Yule (1983:9) specify the meaning of discourse analysis as the study of human use language to communicate in particular, how addresses work on framework deals with the language in use and how it is that language users interpret what other language users intend to convey and what has essential role in the study of language.
The cooperative principle and its maxims in discourse study are often referred to as they provide a lucid description of how listeners (and readers) can distill information from the utterance even though that information has not mentioned outright. Consequently, it refers that conversation or communication can go on smoothly if the cooperative principle is used (Grundy, 2000:23).
Moreover, the cooperative principle of conversation stated that participant expect the stage at which it occurs, by accepted purpose or direction of the table
exchange (Google: 2006).
Grice in Renkema (1993:11) however have a number of additional comments concerning with the cooperative principle. First, the maxims are only valid for language use. Second, there are, from the esthetic or social point of view.
Grice suggests the maxim ‘be polite’. Third, an overabundance of information does not necessarily have to mean that it is this maxim that is being violated, since it can also been as a waste of time and energy and thus as violation of some efficiency principle. Fourth, some maxims are vague. Through this principle, Grice interprets language on the assumption that its senders obey four maxims in their conversation.
Within this principle, Grice in Leech (1983:8) distinguishes four categories that are formulated in basic rules of maxims or popular with Grice’s maxims, namely maxims of quantity, maxims of quality, maxims of relevance and maxims of manner. Maxims of quantity occur when the speakers make
contribution as informative as is required and do not give much informative than is required. Speakers should tell the contribution as informative as possible; it should be neither too little nor too much. Maxims of quality are speakers’
contributions should be as clear as brief and must be on evidence. Speakers should tell the truth; they should not say what they think is false or make statements that they lack on evidence. Maxims of relevance; it should be relevant. We have to make the contribution relevant to the aims of conversation. Maxims of manner; it is to the point, be brief and be orderly.
Although it is always used to communicate in conversation, but not all communication either verbal or nonverbal communication uses Grice’s maxims or
this cooperative principle. It may disobey Grice’s maxims either one maxim or this cooperative principle. It disobeys Grice’s maxim either one maxim or more. It is called by “flouting and hedging maxim”. Grice did not, however, assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims. Instead, he found it interesting when these were "flouted" or "violated" (either purposefully or unintentionally breaking the maxims) by speakers, which would imply some other, hidden meaning. The importance was in what was not said (Google: 2007).
In addition, it is flouting when the speaker violates some maxims in producing the utterance in the form of rhetorical strategies, namely tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical question, and irony.
Furthermore, the maxims are hedged when the information is not totally accurate but seem informative, well founded and relevant; moreover the speaker quotes the information from other people.
Wardhaugh (1986:274) acknowledges that in speaking to one another, we make use of sentences, or, to be more precise, utterances. To produce utterances, everyone needs language in communicating with others whenever and wherever they are. Conclusively, language involves a system of arbitrary vocal symbols of human communication (Wardhaugh, 1986:13).
To ensure a smooth communication and harmonious interpersonal relationship in non-hostile social communication, flouting and hedging maxims are used. Those strategies can be applied in both oral and written communication.
Anyway, people can communicate orally by many kinds of media; one of them is movie. And movie is one of media to apply verbal communication in form of
conversation among one character to another. Most of movies provide lots of conversation among characters; and thus, it is quite appropriate to investigate phenomena of flouting and hedging maxims in the movie. Thus, the researcher wants to explore the data through movie in studying flouting and hedging maxims.
The object of this study is chosen because of some reasons. The general reason that underlines why the researcher selects this movie is the language used.
Besides, an exploratory of some utterances in conversations which give more data in analyzing the phenomena of flouting and hedging maxims is interesting
because there were not researcher who researched this field from movie. Further, it is quite appropriate to investigate flouting and hedging maxims field through the apparent context, utterances and setting in order to know how the theory of
Grice’s Cooperative Principle are applied in the movie.
Comedy is a genre that not provides huge entertainment but also containment. Its jokes and slapsticks can be treated as an approach to deliver entertainment to audiences and its innuendoes have undeniable links to the present historical and social contexts. Comedy movie can be discussed from various perspectives, from psychology, gender, class and history
(http:www.wallflowerpress.co.uk/publications/film/film_comedy.html). “Bend It Like Beckham” is one of comedy movies. It includes in a sporty comedy movie which the main character of this movie is Indian; however, she lives in London and her family still hold the original tradition. Besides, the language use in this movie is switched between Indian and English, so it makes new style in producing
or uttering and the way how the main characters state the utterance of language use. There are utterances stated by giving hearer do not understand what the main characters mean. In addition, it earned over 11 million pounds or $32,543,449 at the UK box office. It has nominated for Golden Globe, and won 17 awards in various categories and events. It also won the British Comedy awards, 2002, in Best Comedy film category. In addition, the film topped the box office charts in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and won audience favorite film awards at the Locarno, Sydney and Toronto film festivals, and was nominated for Best Film by the European Film Academy and the Best European Film.
Actually the previous researchers have already conducted; the study of discourse has been done by some of university students from many perspectives.
This study has relation with the studies done previously conducted Hanifa (2001) who investigated flouting of the felicity conditions of conversational maxims in Oliver Goldsmith’s She Stop The Conquer, Saifullah (2002) who investigated implicatures on the headlines of the Jakarta Post, Hariyanto (2003) who investigated conversational maxims on the special terms used by Indonesian chatters in IRC Malang channel, and Romlah (2006) who investigated flouting and hedging maxims used by Syaikh Ahmed Deedat and Pastor Stanley Sjoberg in a great open debate “Is Jesus God?”.
To distinguish the study with those previous explanations mentioned above, the researcher is interested in investigating flouting and hedging maxims of utterances used in the movie especially the utterances used by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”. It is expected that the researcher will give scientific
contribution about how to analyze flouting and hedging maxims in “Bend It Like Beckham”.
1.2 Problems of the Study
With regard to the description above, this research focuses on the following questions:
1. How are the maxims flouted by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”?
2. How are the maxims hedged by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
As stated in the problems of the study, the objectives of this study are:
1. to describe the way maxims are flouted by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”
2. to describe the way maxims are hedged by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”
1.4 Significance of the Study
This study is expected to give valuable contributions theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the findings of this study were expected to be one of the sources in discourse studies especially on the analyzing flouting and hedging maxims spoken language.
Practically, this study is also expected that it would be useful for the teachers and students of UIN Malang, especially those of English Letters and Language Department. It is expected to be one of input in discourse analysis and to give knowledge how to analyze flouting and hedging maxims in spoken language. Therefore, it can be applied in teaching and learning process. The researcher also expects the result of this research can give an important direction for others who are interested in doing similar research in field in the future.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study focuses on analyzing the flouting and hedging maxims that is used by the main characters. There are components dealing with this study. The first is cooperative principle that contains four maxims: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of manner and maxim of relevant. The second is implicature that is divided into conventional and conversational implicatures.
Moreover, conversational implicature is divided into generalized and
particularized implicatures. But this study is limited only on studying the flouting and hedging maxims of utterances used by the main characters in “Bend It Like Beckham”.
1.6 Definition of the Key Terms
In order to avoid misunderstanding of the terms used, the researcher states some key terms in this study which are defined as follows:
1. Flouting maxim is that the speaker breaks the maxims when producing the utterance in the form of rhetorical strategies, namely tautology, metaphor, overstatement, understatement, rhetorical question and irony.
2. Hedging maxim
Hedging maxim is that the speaker breaks the maxims when the information is not totally accurate but seems informative, well founded and relevant.
3. Implicature
Implicature is anything that is inferred from utterance but it is not a condition for the truth of utterance.
4. Utterances
Utterances are the words spoken by the main characters in Bend It Like Beckham movie. They are Jessminder, Joe and Julie
5. ‘Bend It Like Beckham”
“Bend It Like Beckham” is a sporty comedy film which released Premiers in UK at April 11th 2002 and directed by Gurinder Chandha. It tells about an origin Indian young girl who wants to be a soccer-player professionally like her hero David Beckham. However, her parents prohibit her and do not let her dream.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents the discussion about several theories dealing with the focus of this study that support this study. Those are; Discourse Analysis,
discourse analysis is Context and Text, Written and Spoken Discourse, Implicature, Cooperative Principle, Flouting Maxims, Hedging Maxims, The Synopsis of “Bend It Like Beckham” and Previous Study.
2.1 Discourse Analysis
Renkema (1993:1) says that discourse studies are the discipline devoted to the investigation of the relationship between form and function in verbal
communication. It defines that the investigation of the relationship between forms of communication are statement, question, and the function of communication such as invitation, refusal, complaint etc.
Moreover it states that a discourse is a social text. So when we focus on discourse means that it concerns with ‘talk and texts as parts of social practices (Potter in Alvesson and Scoldberg, 2000:203)
There are many definitions of “Discourse Analysis” and this term is defined in many interpretations. The term discourse analysis was first employed by Zellig Harris in 1952 as the name for ‘a method for the analysis of connected speech (or writing) that is, for ‘continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limits of a single sentence at a time’, and for ‘correlating “culture” and language’.
Schiffrin (1994:39) states that discourse analysis learns about utterances has to do with what we know about communication and that the produces of discourse analysis can be integrated with our knowledge of communication.
Discourse is used for communication: people use utterances to convey information and to lead each other toward an interpretation of meanings and intentions.
Brown and Yule (1983:1) acknowledge that discourse analysis is
committed to an investigation of what and how that language is used for. It means that discourse analysis is concern with the language used for communication and how addresses something on linguistic messages by interpreting them to get the goal in communication’s purposes. In sum, “Discourse Analysis” can be defined with the analysis of language in use.
Discourse analysis (DA) reveals a certain similarity with post
structuralism, in that people are assumed inconsistent and language is not seen as reflecting external or internal (mental) conditions. Discourse analysis claims that through language people engage in constructing the social world. There are three aspects to this. First, people actively create accounts on a basis of previously existing linguistic resources. Secondly, they are continually and actively involved in selecting some of the infinite number of words and meaning construction available, and in rejecting others. Thirdly, the chosen construction has its
consequences: the mode of expression has an effect, it influences ideas, generates responses and so on. Thus, discourse analysis means studying conversation, interviews statements and other linguistic expression, without drawing any
conclusions that are clearly “beyond” the micro situation constituting the context in question.
Besides, discourse analysis is defined as concerned with the language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence or utterance, concerned with the relationship between language and society, and concern with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication (Stubbs, 1983:3).
Cook (1989:1) suggests that the discourse analysis examines how stretches of language considered in their full contextual, social and psychological context, become meaningful and unified for their users. It means that how the language user employs texts to convey their intended meaning if related with the social and psychological interaction.
The term discourse analysis is very ambiguous. It refers mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring-connected speech at written discourse.
Roughly speaking, it refers to attempt to study larger linguistics units, such as conversational exchanges or written text. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language use social context, and it particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers (Stubbs, 1983:1).
Based on the previous explanations above, understanding the speaker’s intended message is insuperable from understanding the context of situation, which carries it, since both of them are interconnected in communication.
2.2 Context and Text 2.2.1 Context
Discourse analysis is describing text and context all together in the process of communication. Moreover, (Cook, 1989:10) says that context is the unity of discourse with considering the word at large, and it is the influenced by the situation when we receive the messages, cultural and social relationship within the participant, what we know and assume the sender knows.
Further, we can understand the text and context from their utterances is when we want to understand about meaning of utterances. As Cook in Sobur (2001:56) acknowledges that the text is all of the linguistic form not only the printed words but also all the communicative expression, such as speech, music, picture and so on, while context is all of the situation from out of the text which influence the language is produced. That is why the meaning of the text depends on the context carries it. Context decides utterance meaning at three distinguishable grades in an analysis of the text of discourse. First, if will generally, if not always, make clear what sentence has been stated if a
sentence has really been uttered. Second, it will generally make clear what preposition has been stated, if preposition has been, if preposition has been stated. Third, it will generally make clear that preposition has been stated with one sort on illocutionary force rather than another, in all of those aspects, context is relevant to the determination of what is said.
Context is provided by a drawing that is intended to constrain subjects’
responses to open-ended, descriptive/explanatory questions. It emerges that
quite different nation of context are examined by clinical linguistics studies (Cumming, 2005:255).
Besides, when we use a language, the environments, circumstances and contexts are important aspects, which must be referred (Brown and Yule, 1983:25). It means that context is on the particular occasion, contexts and that speakers are related each other. Moreover, in speech, meaning of the word is not made by language alone. The meaning of the sentence is right when we know the speaker is and who hearer is, that is why we should know the context.
Moreover, Cook (1989:10) states that context is the unity of discourse with considering the word at large, and it is the influenced by the situation when we receive the messages, cultural and social relationship within the participant, what we know and assume the sender knows. In addition,
discourse analysis is describing text and context all together in the process of communication.
Brown and Yule (1983:37) remarks that language is only meaningful in its context in situation. Logicians are apt to think of words and propositions as having meaning somehow in them selves, a part from participant in context of situation. Speakers and listeners do not seem to be necessary. Further, Firth suggested that voices should not be entirely dissociated from the social context in which they function and that therefore all texts in modern spoken languages to typical participants in some generalized context of situation.
Firth in Brown and Yule (1983:37) remarks that language is only meaningful in its context in situation. Logicians are apt to think of words and propositions as having meaning somehow in them, a part from participants in context of situation. Speakers and listener do not seem to be necessary.
Further, firth suggested that voices should not be entirely dissociated from the social context in which they function and that therefore all texts in modern spoken language to typical participants in some generalized context of situation.
The difference can also be described in terms of situation. Verbal interaction is a part of shared situation, which includes both speakers and listeners. In such a situation, information is also passed along trough means than other language, such as posture, intonation, hand gestures, and etc.
moreover, speaker can quickly react to non-verbal reactions on the part of listeners. A written discourse, in other hand, is not part of a shared situation existing between writers and readers.
Sobur (2001:57) states that there are four kinds of context in communication or in the language use that is physical context, epimistic context, linguistic context and social context. Physical context is the place where the conversation happens, the object presented in communication and the action of language users in communication. Then epistemic context refers to the background of knowledge shared by both of the speaker and hearer.
Linguistic context consists of utterance under consideration in
communication. The last is social context, which means the social relationship
and setting of speaker and hearer. Understanding the context of situation will make the reader or hearer easy in catching the implied message.
2.2.2 Text
Text and context cannot be separated one each other in the study o discourse analysis. Halliday (1992: 13) states that text is a unity of sentence or language that have function in certain context. It refers to all linguistic aspects in written are spoken natural language, i.e. the word used to form the utterance or written text. Text could be a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or a longer stretch of language, in other words any length of words used to create text.
Text is spoken language implemented into written form and discourse or written language can be considered as a text if we analyze them by looking his relationship between speeches, Riceur in Sobur (2001: 53). Moreover, text is a set of sign, which is transmitted from the sender to the receiver through the specific codes. Those codes are interpreted by the receiver to arrive at the speaker’s or writer’s intended message. Besides, text refers to the record of communicative act (Brown and Yule, 1983: 6).
Text as the linguistic content of utterances: the stable semantic meaning of words, expression, and sentences but not the inferences available to hearers depending upon the contexts in which words, expressions, and sentences are sued. Text provides for the ‘what is said’ part of utterances; context combines with “what is said” to create an utterance (Schiffrin 1994:379). Although all the approaches to discourse that we discuss are concerned with language and
with the utterance, not all the approaches are explicitly concerned with the text and utterances.
Another definition of text is that it is not more than groups of letters, words and sentences, which use conventional sign system that it can reveal its intended message (Sobur, 2001: 54). Furthermore, sentences are always hang together and interconnected in a text. It means that sentences display some kind of mutual dependence; they are not occurring at random. It must be coherent as well as cohesive that the concept and relationships expressed should be relevant to each other, thus enabling us to make plausible inferences about the underlying meaning, since the meaning of the text is conveyed not by single sentences but by more complex exchanges in which participant’s beliefs and expectation, the knowledge they share about each other and bout the world and the situation in which they interact, play a crucial part.
A text consists of structured sequenced of linguistic expression or constitutive rules. It means that a text should provide a list of constitutive rules by which a text is brought into being and is read as a text. It should consider the cohesion (how to clauses hold together), coherence (how do the
propositions hold together), intentionality (why did the speaker/writer produce this), acceptability (how does the reader take it), informativity (how does it tell us), relevance (what is text for) and intertextuality (what other texts does this one resemble). So a text is a structured sequence of linguistic expression forming a unitary whole (Edmondson, 1981: 4).
2.3 Written and Spoken Discourse
Both written and oral communication include in discourse. In other word, written and oral communication are parts of discourse. However, there are differences between spoken and written discourse. Wallce Chafe in Renkema (1993: 86) argued that there are two distinguished factors between spoken and oral there are two factors, which explain the differences between spoken or oral and written discourse.
Two factors explain the differences between written discourse and verbal communication:
1. Writing takes longer than speaking. 2. Writers do not have contact with readers. The first factor is responsible for what Chafe calls integration in written language as opposed to the fragmentation that supposedly takes place in verbal interaction. This integration is achieved through, among other things, the use of subordinate conjunctions. These coordinate conjunctions occur more often in written language than they do in verbal interaction. The second factor is responsible for the detachment from reading public in written language as opposed to the involvement that is present with verbal interaction. Speakers and listeners are more involved in communication than writers and readers. This express it self, according to Chafe, in references to the participants in the conversation and comments on the topic of conversation. That the involvement in written language is not a great as made clear, among other things, by the more frequent use of the passive voice in which the person who is acting remains in the background.
A spoken language is a human natural language in which the words are uttered through the mouth (Wikipedia: 2007).
Generally, written and spoken language is quite different functions in society have been forcefully. Then in everyday communication, spoken language plays a greater role than writing in terms of the amount of information conveyed.
In addition, spoken language is always the way in which every native speaker acquires his mother tongue, and writing is learned and taught later when he goes
to school. For modern linguistics, spoken language reveals many true features of human speech while written language is only "revised" record of speech. Thus, their data for investigation and analysis are mostly drawn from everyday speech, which they regard as authentic.
2.4 Implicature
The term “implicature” is used to account for the distinction between what is said and what is implicated by a speaker. Grice in Brown and Yule (1983:31) stated implicature is used to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as a distinct from what a speaker literary says. So, the speaker does not directly utter what the speaker intends to. The speaker tends to make certain utterance, that contain implied meaning and the listener can understand it.
Furthermore, Yule (1996:36) adds that implicature is a primary example of more being communicated than is said, but in order for them to be interpreted, some basic Cooperative Principle must be assumed first to be in operation.
Implicature is inductive inference which the hearer draws, and may therefore be cancelled (Grundy, 2000:81). An implicature is a result of an addressee drawing an inductive inference as to the likeliest meaning the give in context. It is caused hen someone is trying to tell us something, it will give rise to quite different implicature from that inferred. For example: ”Do you have any T-shirt on you?”
It means, “I do not have any T-shirt, can I borrow any T-shirt from you?”
Grice in Brown and Yule (1983:32) also divides implicature into two kinds of implicatures, they are conventional implicature and non-conventional
implicature (conversational implicature). Conventional implicature is non-truth conditional inferences that are not derived from super ordinate pragmatics principles like the maxims, but are simply attached by convention to particular lexical items or expression. For example, when our children once choose of toothpaste on the grounds that it had colored stripes in it and the legend on the tube said, “actually fight decay”. The lexical item “actually” has a literal meaning or entailment – it means in reality or actuality, because it is closely associated with the particular lexical item, so, it can be said as conventional implicature (Grundy, 2000:84).
In addition, he distinguishes conversational implicature into generalized and particularized conversational implicatures. He asserts that generalized conversational implicature is implicature that arises without any particular context or special scenario being necessary (Levinson, 1992:126). Besides, Grundy (2000:81-82) states that generalized conversational implicature arises irrespective of the context in which it occurs and it has little nothing do with the most relevant understanding of an utterance; it drives entirely from the maxims, typically from inferable without reference to a special context. As an example whenever I say (1) I shall be taken to implicate (1a): (1) “I walked into a house”. (1a) “the house was not my house”.
In contrast with the generalized conversational implicature, particularized conversational implicature do require such specific context. It means that
conversational implicature is derivable only in a specific context (context- bounded). Besides, all implicatures that arise from the maxims of relevance are
particularized for utterances are relevant only with respect to the particular topic or issue at hand. In addition, most of the exploitation or flouting maxims can be categorized as particularized implicature (Levinson, 1992:126). For example, the sentence in (2) will only implicature (2a) if (2) occurs in particular sort of setting illustrated in (2b): (2) “The dog is looking very happy”. (2a) “Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef”. (2b) A: “What has opened to the roast beef?” B: “The dog is looking very happy”.
In sum, those implicatures have a special importance for linguistic theory since it is in particular will be hard to distinguish from the semantic content of linguistic expression in all ordinary contexts.
2.5 Cooperative Principle
We should concern with many factor, such as our hearer, what contextually appropriate topics, how to open, to maintain and close our
communication in arriving an effective communication. It requires the cooperative situation between speaker and hearer. The idea that successful communicate proceed according a principle, known and applied by all human being, was first also proposed Herbert Paul Grice. He described the principles as the Cooperative Principle. Grice's cooperative principle is set of norms expected in conversation (Google: 2007).
The success of a conversational depends on speakers’ approaches to the interaction. Thus, one of the most basic assumptions we must make in getting communication successfully. The way how people try to make conversations
work is called by a cooperative principle. The Cooperative Principle is enunciated as the following way: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Finegan, 2004: 300).
The conversational convention or well-known as maxims supported this principle is as follows: Concerning with his Cooperative Principle, Grice in Leech (1983:8) divided a set of maxims related with what should be said in conversation and how it should be said. This pact of cooperation touches on four areas of communication, each of which can be described as a maxim or general principle.
Then, Grice in Grundy (2000:74) divided cooperative principle into four basic conversational maxims. Those are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. It is similar with the statement of Brown and Yule (1983:32):
The conversational convention or well-known as maxims, which support this principle are as follows: Quantity: Make your contribution as informative as is required (for current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required; Quality: Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence; Relation: Be relevant; Manner: Be perspicuous; Avoid obscurity of expression; Avoid ambiguity; be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity); and be orderly.
Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers. Grice analyses cooperation as involving four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Speakers give enough and not too much information: quantity. They are genuine and sincere, speaking "truth" or facts: quality. Utterances are relative to the context of the speech: relation. Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely, avoiding ambiguity: manner.
In speaking, people speaks something based on the reality altough it is difficult and it must be based on the fact. It means that it is based on the context.
As stated on “Islamic wise word”, which states that
.
However, some people sometime speak do not base on the relity. There are some reasons why people tend to use maxims; these maxims allow us to be briefer and simply in communicating, since we do not need to say everything we would need to if we were being perfectly logical (we don’t say “Aan has 4 and only 4 books). Besides, they allow us to say things indirectly to avoid some of the discomfort which comes from saying unpleasant things directly. They also allow us to insult or deride people indirectly without as much danger of confrontation.
They allow us too to imply dissatisfaction or anger without putting us in a position where we will have to directly defend our views. One of the main uses of the maxims, aside from describing how communication generally takes place, is to signal the presence of indirect speech. (http://www.ling.ohio-
state.edu/ kdk/201/spring02/slides/pragmatics2-4up.pdf.).
2.5.1 Maxims of Quantity
A contribution should be as informative as is required for the
conversation to proceed. It should be neither too little, nor to much. 1) Make your contribution as informative as is required; 2) Do not make your
contribution more informative than is required. Quantity: speaker is as informative as required
The maxims of quantity provides that, in normal circumstances,
speakers say just enough, that they supply no less information –and no more–
than is necessary for the purpose of the communication: Be appropriate informative (Finegan, 2004:300). It is not how one can decide what quantity of information satisfies the maxim in given case. We usually assume that people tell us everything or information we need to know. When they do say
anything, then we assume they simply do not know that information. For example: When Father just came home from the office, his son –Joe– asked him to help his son doing homework, but directly Father answered: “I’m tired”. From father’s answer, Joe understood that his father did not help him doing the homework. The kind of this answer fulfills the maxim of quantity because it is informative and implicitly tells the refusal to play without telling much information.
2.5.2 Maxims of Quality
Maxims of quality can be defined be as truthful as required. It means that speakers should tell the truth and they should not say what they think is false, or make statements for which they lack on evidence. 1) Do not say what you believe to be false, i.e. “do not lie”; 2) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence, i.e. “do not say things which you cannot back up.” Quality:
speaker tells the truth or provable by adequate evidence.
Besides, in Ali’s short saying is stated that
. It means that when a
wise man wants to express something. First of all, it refers to the heart (as a center of emotion) and mind weighing the meaning and good or point in what someone’s wishes to express. The wise person uses his heart and mind prior to using his tongue. Thus, someone will speak truth. They speak the truth and they should not say what they think is false, or make statements for which they lack on evidence.
In maxims of quality, speakers and writers are expected to say only what they believe to be true and to have evidence for what they say. Again, the other side of the coin is that speakers are aware of this expectation; they know that hearers expect them to honor the maxim of quality. Without the maxims of quality, the other maxims are of little value or interest. Whether brief or lengthy, relevant or relevant, orderly or disorderly, all lies are false.
Still, it should be noted that the maxim of quality applies principally to assertation and certain other representative speech acts. For example:
a) Most of the tenth class students of MAN I Malang always getting bad marks for their Physics test. So, they have some difficulties in this subject.
Then, it can be proved that the statement below is true: “Physics is difficult” Being assumed to be well founded gives rise to the implicature, the speaker believes or has evidence that it is. So, it fulfills the maxim of quality.
b) Anne is one of Oxford University students who will join Debate
Competition next week. She knew that on Monday the rules of competition
were announced, but she cannot attend because she is sick. Then, she asks her friend who will also join this competition. So, it is true when she asks:
“What are the rules?” It fulfills the maxim of quality since it is assumed to be a sincere question, gives rise to the implicature that the speaker does not know, has wanting to know and thinks the addressee does know.
2.5.3 Maxims of Relation
Maxims of relation or maxims of relevance mean make what you say bare on the issue at hand. In addition, it means that the utterance must be relevant which the topic being discussed. Speakers’ contribution should relate clearly to the purpose of the exchange, it should be relevant. Relation:
response is relevant to topic of discussion. Finegan (2004:301) stated that this maxim directs speakers their utterances in such a way that they are relevant to ongoing context: Be relevant at the time of the utterance. For example:
Nikita : “Where is my fried chicken?”
Jane : “The cat looks happy there”
Any competent speaker knows that Jane means something like “in answer to your question is that the chicken has been eaten by the cat.” Certainly, she does not say that –we work it out on the basis, first, that what she says is relevant to what she has been asked. If mentioned the cat, then the cat must be some kind of answers. This perhaps the most utterly indispensable and
foundational assumption we make about the talk we hear– that it is relevant to what has immediately gone before. Thus, it fulfills the maxim of relation.
2.5.4 Maxims of Manner
Maxims of manner; it is to the point, be brief, be concise, be
perspicuous and be orderly. These maxims relate to the form of speech we use. Speakers should not use words they know but their listeners do not understand or say something, which they could be taken multiple ways.
Speakers should not state anything in a long, drown-out way if they could say it much simpler manner. Being an orderly representation of the world give raises the implicature. It is classified as maxims of manner since the information is clear, brief and avoids obscurity and ambiguity. Manner:
speaker's avoids ambiguity or obscurity, is direct and straightforward. Besides, it is be orderly and clear Finegan (2004:301). For example:
On Dave’s party, his friends planned to give a present for him. Then, they gathered to collect their presents and put them on a box as well they wrapped it. But they got a trouble to decorate it, because all of them were boys and there was only a girl, Donna.
John : “Is there anyone who can make this present looks good?”
Donna : “I can do it.”
Donna’s statement or I can do it shows that she can decorate the present and does not do other things. It implies that she is a girl; and girls usually like to decorate and make something looks beautiful. So, the statement above fulfills the maxim of manner because it is brief and ambiguous.
In short, these four maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relevance and Manner) are powerful because they make conversation easier. These maxims keep the
conversation flowing because we assume that they are being applied by speakers, more or less. Moreover, these help us to express ourselves briefly without fear of being misunderstood. The maxims of the cooperative principle can be used to describe how participants in a conversation derive implicature (Renkema, 1993:10). As well Cook (1989:29-30) acknowledges that using this assumption, combined with general knowledge of the world, the receiver can reason from the literal, semantic meaning of what is said to the pragmatic meaning and induce what the sender is intending to do his or her words. When we talk about people following the cooperative principle, it does not mean that they can consciously and explicitly formulate it to themselves. It means that people often act as though they know the rules of grammar, in fact, there are very few people can even begin to formulate them and nobody can formulate them completely.
From explanation mentioned above, we can conclude that although it is very difficult to obey and use all of the cooperative principles and its maxims in uttering or writing the sentences, but it is essential to follow the cooperative principle and its maxims in order that the language user it more effectively in communication.
2.6 Flouting Maxims
Grice in Grundy (2000:75) states that Maxims of Quantity are: firstly, make your contribution as informative as it required (for the purposes the exchange); secondly, do not make your contribution more informative than it required (Grundy, 2000: 74). Therefore, each participant’s contribution to
conversation should be just as informative as it requires; it should not be less informative or more informative. And say as much as helpful but not more informative or less informative. For example:
“The students are making progress”
Being all the information that the speaker provides gives rise to the
implicature that the students are not doing brilliantly. This example is classified as Maxims of Quantity because the contribution is informative as is required, not more or less informative.
Maxims are the basic assumption, not rules and they can be broken. It is usual case in which someone is disobeying some maxims, but it is not done so purposefully with the intention that the hearer recognizes that a maxim is being disobeyed. However, Grice distinguishes between the speaker successfully obey the rule and the one breaking the maxims such as by lying, which he termed flouting or hedging maxims and overtly breaking them for some linguistic effect, which he call as Flouting maxims. Moreover, flouting maxims describe as situation in which a maxim is being deliberately disobeyed with the intention that the hearer recognized that is the case (http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~Mind
Dict/grice.html). It means that the speaker violates some maxims; therefore the listener must conclude the violation was purposeful.
There are four criteria which determine the flouting of each maxim, they are:
1) A speaker flouts the maxim of quantity when his contribution is not
informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange and more informative than is required.
2) A speaker flouts the maxim of quality when his contribution is not true and he says something for which lacks adequate evidence.
3) A speaker flouts the maxim of relation if his contribution is not relevant.
4) A speaker flouts the maxim of manner if contribution is not perspicuous it may be obscure, ambiguous and disorderly
(http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~Mind Dict/grice.html).
Flouting of maxim is results of the speaker conveying, in addition to the literal meaning which is conversational implicature (Brown and Yule, 1989:32).
Furthermore, it is still has an implicature to save the utterance from simply appearing to be a faulty contribution to a conversation in spite of disobeying Grice’s maxims. As Grundy (Grundy, 2000: 78) states Flouting a maxims is a particularly salient way of getting an addressee to draw an inference and hence recover an implicature, thus there is a trade-off between abiding by maxims.
For example:
“Well, it is a university”.
This sentence tells us that addresses will try to work out of what he or she is intending to convey, in addition to the information that already known to term (i.e. that we are in university) perhaps that there is no part in complaining since what the complainant has noticed to be expected.
Flouting maxims usually can be found on Tautology, Metaphor,
Overstatement, Understatement, Rhetorical question and irony (Grundy, 2000: 76- 77). The detailed description is as follows:
2.6.1 Tautology
A statement which true by its own definition, and is therefore
fundamentally uninformative is called by tautology. Logical tautologies use circular reasoning within an argument. Tautology is saying of the same thing more than once in different ways without making one’s meaning clearer or more forceful (Hornby, 1995: 1224). A statement as “Women are women” is an example of tautology. It conveys no information if taken literally and thus implicates more than the words themselves. Women are a special people in life. They have special characteristic that did not own by men. The speaker cannot explain what the definition of women is because it is difficult to
explain it. Based on this definition, the example is classified as tautology since there is repetition of word that is the word “women”.
Based on the definition, the example is classified as tautology because there is repetition of word that is the word “to pay”. Tautology usually flouts the maxim of quantity. But uttering a tautology, speaker encourages listener to look for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance, it may be an excuse (Goody: 225). For example: (a) “War is war” (b) “Boys will be boys”. It is also tautology because there are repetitions of words. Tautology may be a criticism, for example: “Your clothes belong where your clothes
belong, my clothes belong where my clothes belong-look upstairs”. Moreover, tautologies serve similar function, for example a refusal of request: “If I will not give it, I will not (C.I. I mean it)”, or complain, for example: “If it is as a road, it is a road! (C.I. Boy, what a terrible road!”).
2.6.2 Metaphor
Metaphor is one of the most frequent violations of Grice’s
conversational principles. We use metaphor words to indicate something different from the literal meaning. In metaphor a word which in literal usage denotes one kind of things. For example: “Money does not grow on trees but in blossom at out branches (Lioy’s Bank Advertisement)”. This example uses symbolic; therefore the listener must conclude what is implied meaning from his utterance.
Besides, metaphor is the imaginative use of word or phrase to describe something as another object in order to show that they have the same qualities and make the description more forceful (Hornby, 1995: 734), e.g. “She has a heart of stone”. Another example that is categorized as metaphor is from Holy Kur’an; it is Ar-rum: 19. It states that
! ! "
#
$
%
& ' ( % () : 19).
“It is He who brings out the living from the dead, and brings out the dead from the living, and who lives life to the earth after it is dead; and thus shall ye be brought out (from the dead)”
Metaphors are further category of quality violations, for metaphor is literally false. The use metaphor is perhaps usually on record, but there is possibility that exactly which of the connotations of the speaker intends may be of record (Goody: 227). For example: “Harry is a real fish”. It means that he drinks of swims or is cold blooded like a fish.
Based on the definitions, the examples above are classified as metaphor because are not the real condition but it use symbolic.
2.6.3 Overstatement
The opposite of understatement is overstatement. Overstatement is expression or stated of one’s too strongly (Hornby, 1995: 829). It means that the speaker says more than is necessary that violating the maxim of quality. In another way, he may also convey implicatures. He may do this by the inverse of the understatement principle that is by exaggerating on choosing a point on a often lie far beyond what is said scale which is higher than the actual state of affair. For examples:
(1) “Now we have all been screwed by the cabinet (Sun headline”) (2) “There were a million people in the room tonight”
These examples are classified as overstatement because use exaggeration statements (we have all, a million people); therefore, the information are more informative.
Moreover, overstatement also coveys an excuse for being late and it could an apology for not getting in touch, for example: I try to call a hundred
times, but there was never any answers. It is also could convey the relevant criticisms, for examples: (1) “you never do the washing up”. (2) “Why are you always smoking?”. Furthermore, if the speaker wishes to convey an off record sarcasm he might use over statement as a trigger for the appropriate implicatures (Goody: 225). For example: “Oh no, John, we never meant to cause you any trouble. Nothing could have been further from our minds. I cannot imagine how you could come to that conclusion. It is out of question”.
This example also exaggerated statement because the speaker gives more informative information.
2.6.4 Understatement
In Understatement, the statement is less informative or too economical so it is not informative (Hornby, 1974: 940). Understatement is one way of generating implicatures by saying less than is required. Typical ways of constructing understatement are to choose a point on a scalar predicate (e.g.
tall, good, nice) that is well below the point that actually describes the state of affairs (Goody: 222). Besides, Hornby (1995: 1299) states that understatement is a statement that expresses an idea, etc in a very weak way. For examples:
(1) “This is not a man who would have been a natural member of the Liberal Democrats (Paddy Ashdown, farmer leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Following the death of the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Today BBC Radio 4)”.
(2) A: “What do you thing of Harry?”
B: “Nothing wrong with him (C.I. I do not particularly like it)”.
Those examples are classified as understatement because the speakers give less informative statement.
Understatement can be in the form of:
(1) Accepting a complement, for example: A: "What a marvelous place you have been here?" B: "Oh, I do not know it is a place".
(2) Insult, for example: A: "I do indeed come from Scotland, but I cannot help it…", B: "That, Sir, I find, is what a very great many of your countrymen can not help".
(3) Accepting an offer, for example: A: "Have another drink? B: I do not mind if I do". All of the examples above give less informative information (Goody: 224).
2.6.5 Rethorical Question
In Rhetorical question, one asked only to produce an effect or make a statement rather than to get an answer (Hornby, 1995: 1008). In other word, it is one that requires no answer because the answer is obvious and does not need be stated. The speaker (of the rhetorical question) is not looking for an answer but it is making some kind of point, as in an argument
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/rhetorical-question.html).
For example:
"Who cares?”
“How many times do I have to call you?”, (I have called you many times, but you were not there).
Those are classified as rhetorical question because the speaker does not expect the answer from the hearers.
Sometimes the rhetorical question is evidenced only in sequencing.
Rhetorical question usually uses the words that help to force the interpretation of questions (to push them on record), such as just event, ever (Goody, 1996:
229). For example: A: “Did he even or ever come to visit me once while I was in hospital?” B: “Just why would I have done that?”
2.6.6 Irony
Irony is the expression of one’s meaning by saying the direct opposite of what one is thinking but using tone of voice to indicate one’s real meaning.
(Hornby, 1995: 632). By saying the opposite of what he means, again
violation of quality maxims speaker can directly convey his intended meaning, if there are clues that is intended meaning is being conveyed indirectly
(Goody: 226). It means irony refers to the sense of difference between what is asserted and what is actually the case. Verbal irony is a statement in which the implicit meaning intended by the speaker offers from what he obstansibly asserts. Moreover, irony is closely related to understatement (Kenney, 1966:
71). For example:
(a). “The world is most exiting politician (said of the unglamorous Bob Dole, the Republican Candidate in the 1996 American Presidential Election”).
(b). “John is the real genius (after john has done stupid things in a row)”.
Based on the definition, these examples are classified as irony because the speakers said the opposite not the real condition.
2.7 Hedging Maxims
The maxims are hedged when the information given is not completely accurate except seems informative, well founded, as well as relevant. The information is taken by quoting from other person opinion. Besides, the maxims hedges or intensifiers are that none of them adds truth-value to the utterances to which they are attached. This confirms that the hedges and intensifiers are more comment in the extent to which the speaker abiding by the maxims, which guided our conversational contribution than a part of what is said or conveyed (Grundy, 2000: 79). For example:
“They say smoking damage your health”.
The speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance that is suggested as quality hedges. In addition, it quality hedges that weaken speaker’s commitment may redress advice or for making promises. “He says that experience is the best teacher”. He says would be understood as a hedge on the maxim of quality and would serve as a warning to the addressee that the
information from the speaker might not be as well founded as normally expected.
